voor het dossier
van het EVA-hof (voor zover beschikbaar).
Motivation ministry: 12 June 2020 Written
observations: 31 July 2020
: recognition of
Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a
Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA)
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional
qualifications; incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision
No 142/2007 of the EEA Joint Committee.
Facts of the case:
The case concerns
the validity of a decision of the Norwegian Directorate of
Health and the Norwegian Appeal Board for Health Personnel
rejecting an application for an authorisation/licence. The
appellants have Master’s degrees in psychology from universities
in Hungary. Until the spring of 2016, the authorities in Norway
granted a licence and subsequently authorisation as a
psychologist (psykolog) on the basis of the Hungarian Master’s
degree. These authorities changed their practice in the spring
of 2016 because they had received new information about the
profession of psychologist in Hungary in an IMI report.
Candidates holding a Hungarian Master’s degree had their
applications for a licence as a psychologist rejected. Persons
who were already working on the basis of a licence had their
applications for authorisation as a psychologist rejected. On
14-06-2018 the Appellants brought proceedings against the
Norwegian Government seeking to have the decisions rejecting
their applications declared invalid and themselves awarded
compensation. They claimed that they were entitled to an
authorisation/licence under both national law and under EEA law.
The Oslo District Court concluded that the health authorities’
decisions were valid. The Appellants appealed the judgment to
Borgarting Court of Appeal.
On 12-06-2018 ESA
(EFTA Surveillance Authority) initiated infringement proceedings
against Norway on grounds of the stated infringement of the
Professional Qualifications Directive and Articles 28 and 31 of
the EEA Agreement. By reply of 26-09-2018, Norway disputed that
it had infringed its Treaty obligations. ESA issued a reasoned
opinion on 29-04-2020, in which it found that Norwegian
recognition practice for psychologists trained in Hungary is
contrary to the EEA Agreement and gave the Norwegian authorities
a time-limit of four months in which to remedy the recognition scheme.
Request for an
1. In connection
with the assessment of “same profession”, see Articles 1 and 4
of the Directive, answers are requested to the following questions:
is the legal assessment and what are the legally relevant
factors in the determination of whether a profession in the
State where the qualification was obtained and that in the host
State constitute the “same profession”?
b. In the
determination of “same profession”, must the host State take
account of professional activities which the applicant in
question may pursue in the State where the qualification was
obtained, only under supervision and on the condition that the
applicant has commenced a course of further education and
training or undertaken to commence such a course of education
and training within two years? If so, is it of any consequence
that the applicant has opted not to commence or undertake to
commence such a course of further education and training?
importance does differences in degree of independence in
pursuing a profession and responsibility for patients have in
the determination of whether it is the “same profession”?
2. Does the
possibility of requiring compensation measures, see Article 14
of Directive 2005/36/EC, have any bearing on the interpretation
of what constitutes “same profession”? If so, what importance
does this have?
3. What is the
specific legal assessment under Article 2(1)(e)6 of Directive
2005/36/EC, which provides that regulated education and training
must be “specifically geared to the pursuit of a given profession”?
4. In connection
with Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement, answers are
requested to the following:
an applicant does not fulfil the requirements for having
qualifications recognised under Article 13 of the Professional
Qualifications Directive, read in conjunction with Article 14,
may the applicant rely on Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA
Agreement as a basis for pursuing the regulated profession in
the host State?
question a is answered in the affirmative, what is then the
legally relevant assessment for the examination under Articles
28 and 31?
case-law: C-330/03; C-125/16; C-313/01; C-238/98; C-31/00;
283/81 CILFIT; C-575/11; C
Policy Area: OCW